On rating quests
#46
Posted 03 April 2013 - 10:28 AM
1. The Hero of Dreams
2. Origin
3. The Hidden Duality: Director's Cut
4. Power of Geduina
5. Stranded
6. How To: Over-Under Bridges
7. Zelda's Butt
8. MegaMan: Dr.Wily's Revenge - Director's Cut
9. Link's Birthday Deluxe
10. Bikdip's Adventure 2: Electric Boogaloo
It doesn't greatly change the list, but some things are shuffled around a bit.
But, like I said, no system is prefect. Length sounds good at first thought, but I'd rather not encourage people to spam up their reviews just to make them count more. Like/dislikes only really work with large numbers of reviews and could make "hidden gems" even more prone to being lost if they don't happen to get reviewed much at all. I'm happy to consider a better system in the future if everyone likes it, but you're never going to find that perfect system that fits every scenario.
#47
Posted 03 April 2013 - 10:34 AM
#48
Posted 03 April 2013 - 10:35 AM
#49
Posted 03 April 2013 - 11:05 AM
Edited by Jamian, 03 April 2013 - 11:31 AM.
#50
Posted 03 April 2013 - 02:23 PM
I actually like Robin's 100-point system better for more accurate reviews, but still with quests starting with a 50% rating. It sucks that, as is about to happen to my quest, a 4.5 shows up as a five star, but once it drops down to 4.49, it becomes a 4 star. If it drops .01, it appears to drop a full star all at once. A percentage system would allow for more accurate comparisons and require a little more thought.
Edited by Aevin, 03 April 2013 - 02:50 PM.
#51
Posted 03 April 2013 - 02:41 PM
As for the Bayesian average, the problem is something can never be 5/5 (or 10/10) or 0/5 (or 0/10) because of that random 3 (or 5) rating.
#52
Posted 03 April 2013 - 03:23 PM
This is true in the graphical sense, but you can always hover over your star rating to see the extended decimal. Not a full replacement, I know.
It's true that you can never reach exactly 5 stars or 0 stars with a finite number of ratings, but I don't see it as a problem. It has the nice property that if two quests get exclusively 5-star ratings, the one with more 5-star ratings will be ranked higher. Inversely, if two quests get exclusively 0-star ratings, then the one with more 0-star ratings will be ranked lower. (The interesting case is, when a quest has an average review of 3 stars it will absolutely always have exactly a 3-star rating as well.)
#53
Posted 03 April 2013 - 04:36 PM
#54
Posted 03 April 2013 - 04:58 PM
#55
Posted 03 April 2013 - 05:09 PM
Well, I'll go ahead and jump in to say that the new site has a more advanced algorithm to come up with ratings. It's called a Bayesian Average. It basically helps weed out outliers by adding in an extra rating of a 3.
So, let's say a new quest comes in and has 2 ratings of 5. Instead of being rated 5, it would be rated like this:
(5+5+3)/3 = 4.33
Likewise, if someone just comes and gives a horrible first review, it helps solve that too.
(0+3)/2 = 1.5
I think this is the best system since it just drifts everything slightly toward the center. The less reviews, the more it pushes the rating toward an basic 3. The problem is, no system is perfect. Personally, I'm not sure a like/dislike system would work well on PureZC. That really seems to shine when tons of people post ratings.
#56
Posted 03 April 2013 - 06:22 PM
Guys, you are pathetic. I find it pitiful that your little group has gotten together to give awful ratings to such an outstanding quest. This game deserves at least 4 stars. If you don't like that the game follows Z1 style it's understandable, but not seeing the insane amount of fun that there is behind this quest is just sad. The jealously behind some people never ceases to amaze me. If I were you, I would actually start asking myself why more people play Jamian quest than yours... Seriously, think about it for a minute. That Russ, out of all people, came here to teach game design classes is simply hilarious.
#57
Posted 03 April 2013 - 06:28 PM
Fight!
Fight!
Fight!
-Strike
#58
Posted 03 April 2013 - 06:34 PM
Air Luigi, this thread was for the discussion of how quests are rated, which then led to a discussion of the current rating system and the one coming with the new site. This is not an opening for you to call out other members who have legitimate opinions of a quest that differ from yours. Having watched at least two of them stream it, I honestly have to agree with their opinions. The quest is not for them, and not for me; that's none of your business. Neither is it ours if you or others happen to like it. The fact that you're also making personal attacks against these people is completely unacceptable. It's in our rules: "Do not harass other members."
If you have a problem with this, you may take it up with me or another staff member via PM, or use the dropbox. Otherwise, let's stay on topic here, people.
#59
Posted 03 April 2013 - 06:49 PM
It's clear that "the special group" got together on this, that's the sad part, even more so than their opinion and rating. But if denouncing an injustice is prohibited in this forum, then I won't insist anymore.
Edited by Air Luigi, 03 April 2013 - 06:50 PM.
#60
Posted 03 April 2013 - 06:49 PM
A percentage system is fine.
As for the Bayesian average, the problem is something can never be 5/5 (or 10/10) or 0/5 (or 0/10) because of that random 3 (or 5) rating.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
-
Bing (1)